Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

So is Creationism. That's why neither of these should be taught in publicly funded schools.

 

Often issues get conflated. For example there is no definitive proof that I am aware of that man evolved from apes. This is a specific evolutionary question and the answer would not invalidate or validate the entire theory of evolution. Like I keep pointing out - natural selection is a scientific process commonly used by people in the bible-belt. To suggest they don't accept the natural selection is wrong when all they don't accept is the origin of human existence as theorized by some evolutionists. Science has not been able to directly link humans evolving from apes.
--- merged: Feb 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM ---

Yes, there are many creationist folk tales that have no credibility. But we still don't know how the universe was created, any theory is based on some form of creative thought as opposed to science. Do you take Hawking's serious on this subject and think his view is more credible than others, and if so why?

 

Yes... I believe Hawking's theories better than a group of semi-literate sheep herders.

 

Bill Nye the Science Guy says "fuck?"

I think I like him even more than I did years ago, when my kids were watching him.
--- merged: Feb 4, 2013 at 9:26 PM ---

If you mean, by different, that we are going to find that the one continent model is untrue, I'd say you're wrong. We may discover more about it's climate, it's geography, what forms of life were present before the continents began to split but I cannot see science reverting back to pre-Pangaean beliefs.

Creationism is folklore as well though it is possible to fit creationism into what science knows. The heavens created first, then the earth, then the plant life, animals, and finally man. This sequence of events is pretty close and as an exercise, I wouldn't object to a science teacher pointing this out to his students, but I wouldn't linger on the topic.

There's probably other aspects of Genesis that can fit into what we now know about the origins of life and the early stages of life on earth.

Unfortunately, in places like Texas, I would be willing to bet that the creation story is taught literally.

I think this information is known, Ace. Fetuses can feel pain about a week or two into the 2nd trimester (which is why I personally would never choose to have an abortion after the start of the 2nd trimester). Consciousness requires a central nervous system and a certain level of brain development. I can't remember when that stage of development is complete, but when consciousness develops is not in question.

As to when human life begins for a fetus. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about when a fetus can live outside the womb?

.
I think you are the one who doesn't understand these applications or at least you don't understand the level of near certainty one can count on when discussing scientific theory. The only level higher is scientific fact and it's generally not very much higher at all.

 

What I find interesting about that is Hawking's theories on the origins of the universe are speculative at best - and there is no consensus with his views on the subject in the scientific community. On this issue he is no better or worse than any modern science fiction novelist.
--- merged: Feb 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM ---

At its core, if that is not true about the theory what is?

The word "strong" has more than one commonly used meaning - sure it can mean the ability to move heavy objects. It can also mean the ability to do something well in a robust manner or something that is exceptional in a robust manner - i.e. Dinosaur shit has a strong odor. Dinosaur shit certainly does not have the ability to move heavy objects but by today's standards my theory is that it would be exceptionally robust.

If the evolution process makes for more efficient species, isn't human interference in the process harmful?

It is my morality, based on my belief in a God, that makes me want to care for those less fortunate than I am - given a belief and acceptance of the Theory of Evolution what is your basis for wanting to care for those less fortunate than yourself? There is a level of self-awareness that allows for empathy for others, what evolutionary purpose does this serve in nature? Isn't the honest evolutionary answer to weed out that which does not add to the progressive improvement of a species? if you have conflicting views on this, how do you reconcile them?

 

Ace, do you not think that human empathy and morality predate organized religion?

 

This is a recap of Hawking's theory - Once upon a time there was a pea sized thing containing space, time, energy and matter - but none of these things existed pre-space time. For some reason this pea sized thing explodes in a condition when the laws of gravity as we know them were reversed creating an infinite expansion of space and time.... Conveniently, there was no space and there was no time - so time and space were created and there was no time when space did not exist. Therefore beginning has no context. Or, the Universe has no beginning???

And you have an issue with the Bible?

 

Yes. I believe it is around the ages of 2 to 3 when humans reach a stage of self-awareness when they can comprehend their being through the perceptions of other beings. This occurs before there is a comprehension of organized religion. I believe this state arises in all human and in conditions where no organized religion as we know it is being practiced. Humans experience shame, embarrassment, pride, etc. - a sense of right and wrong - good and bad. I want to know how the theory of evolution responds to this?

 

Right and Hawkings has his follower, faith in his words, same as the Bible does. I repeat either path requires, faith. If person A has faith in the Bible and person B has faith in "Origin of The Universe" by Hawkings - what difference does it make to me. Not one bit of difference. But to you, it seems to make a difference and I am still not sure I understand why. At this point I doubt I ever will, we are not progressing in helping me understand your point of view..

 

Do you believe your conscious is a condition of your environment? I don't. The author of the book you cite does.
--- merged: Feb 5, 2013 at 5:52 PM ---

Right, I don't understand much from your point of view - good thing I have you to tell me that.

 

FTFY...if its good enough for the Science Guy...

You have gone beyond all reasonable attempts to focus on the issue of concern to many here but, clearly, you cant reason with ideologues or idiots.

Wake me when we return to the elephants in the room.
--- merged: Feb 5, 2013 at 6:27 PM ---
The Super Bowl of the Republican party.

Vegas has not set the betting line yet.

 

i think this makes it crystal clear that the tea party was indeed a grassroots movement that was hijacked by mainstream republicans. since they couldn't fully infiltrate and comprimise the movement, now they are trying to squash the whole thing outright. it doesn't get anymore 'establishment' than karl rove.

 

I am all for more Tea Party candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Joe Miller, Todd Akin, etc. with others like Michelle Bachmann or Rand Paul as the self-appointed faces of the party.

 

Rove and the neocons v the Tea Party. Where can I buy tickets for this?

What the Republicans really need is to rediscover the way of conservatives like, William F. Buckley, Jr.